CHILD v. FAMILY SERVICES, 2011 ONCJ 723

WARNING The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice should be attached to the file: This is a case under

Part III of the Child and Family Services Act and is subject to one or more of subsections 48(7), 45(8) and 45(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 85(3) of the Child and Family Services Act , which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows: 45.—

(7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication. — The court may make an order, . . . (

c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing, where the court is of the opinion that . . . publication of the report, . . ., would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding.

(8) Prohibition: identifying child. — No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child's parent or foster parent or a member of the child's family.

(9) Idem: order re adult. — The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part. . . . 85.—

(3) Idem. — A person who contravenes subsection 45(8) or 76(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 45(7)(

c) or subsection 45(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both. Cambridge Registry No. 3001/10 DATE: 2011·XI·14 CITATION: Child and Family Services of Waterloo Region, v. W.L.E. , 2011 ONCJ 723 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO, Applicant, — AND — W.L.E. and A. C., Respondents. Before Justice Paddy A.

Hardman Heard on 1 and 4-7 April 2011; 3 and 4 May 2011 Reasons for Judgment released on 14 November 2011 Ms. Kimberley Ann Putman ....................................................................... for the applicant society

Mr. Patrick A. Brohman ............................................................ for the respondent mother, W.L.E. Respondent father, A.C. ....................................................................................... on his own behalf [ 1 ] JUSTICE P.A. HARDMAN:— The society has brought an application seeking findings and Crown wardship without access for F.L.M.E.C., born on […] January 2010. The mother who was represented by counsel at trial has acknowledged that findings are not an issue but seeks placement of the child in her care.

The father who represented himself has also filed a plan and told the court that he wanted the child placed in his care for six months “to see how it goes”. Background for the Mother: Statements of Agreed Facts [ 2 ] Historically the mother’s ability to parent has been a concern. She initially had her first daughter A. born March 1994 in her care from her release from hospital.

There were initial concerns about the ability of the mother to care for the child given that the child was high needs with developmental disabilities and given the mother’s own problems. [ 3 ] There were concerns about domestic violence with her partner ER, her parenting capacity and drug use. The mother suffered from seizures. There was concern that the mother had difficulty waking up to feed the baby. [ 4 ] Despite the emotional and physical abuse by ER and his threats to kill her, the mother did not leave him to ensure the safety of the child.

Further she was not truthful about the extent of the domestic violence. [ 5 ] In August 1994, the mother told the society that she would not use drugs any more. On September 7, 1994, the child was found to be in need of protection and an order for six months society supervision was made placing the child with the mother. On March 1, 1995, a six month society supervision order was made placing the child in the mother’s care. [ 6 ] During this order, there were continuing concerns: the home was found to be in an “adequate to barely adequate” state.

There was concern about the harassment by the father ER and the mother’s drug use although she did undertake again in January 1995 not to use any more drugs. There were concerns about the mother not being alert. [ 7 ] There was an expectation that the mother attend counselling to deal with a number of matters including self esteem, problem-solving and anger management. On August 23, 1995, the order of supervision was extended to accommodate further counselling.

On February 13, 1996, the society sought to terminate supervision given the counselling attended and the number of supports in the community and the order was made. [ 8 ] The society began re-involved on a number of occasions: • July 1998: referral due to several assaults on the mother by her partner GB, father of their child B., the mother’s second child- the mother did not wish to leave • October 1999: concerns expressed by daycare regarding neglect, drug-use by the mother, lack of regular attendance of B. at daycare/ father of B. refused to return him after access due to his concerns • November 1999: concerns expressed by the school regarding the state of A.: no diapers available, unclean, and a chronic diaper rash • June 2000: again concerns from the school: number of days missed • April 2001: school concerned about an open wound/sore on A. • December 2001: unverified concern about the mother’s use of alcohol • April 2002: altercation between the mother and her new boyfriend KB/ information that he was drinking all night • May 2002: complaint from school regarding a rope burn on B.’s neck-considered accidental/ home found not to be adequately clean • August 2002: two police referrals regarding domestic violence between the mother and boyfriend KB [ 9 ] Concerns continued in September 2003.

On September 23, 2003, the society received a referral from the police about a

domestic dispute in which the mother was threatened by PN, her new boyfriend who was drinking and using drugs during the incident. On September 16, 2003the mother told the society that she did not intend to reconcile with PN. [ 10 ] On September 22, 2003, the society received an anonymous tip that the mother was locking nine year old A. who was developmentally delayed in her room both at night and during the day.

The caller also said that she believed that the mother was using drugs given her behaviour. [ 11 ] On September 26, 2003, the intake worker spoke to the school and learned that A. had significant delays, was almost non-verbal and could not be interviewed. She also learned that the child was not at school as a result of an extreme head lice infestation and had only been at school for four days that fall. The teacher confirmed that she had reviewed what to do to get rid of the lice with the mother but that she did not appear to understand.

She also told the worker that while she provided food items for the child while at school, none were prepared ahead and the school had to prepare it. [ 12 ] When the worker and a student attended the home that same day, the mother answered the door in a bra and open vest. The mother said that she was dressed that way because she had recently broken her collarbone and had severe pain from a blood clot.

Despite slurring her words and appearing to be under the influence of drugs, she mother denied having taken any medications. [ 13 ] The mother was very vague about the domestic violence with PN and refused to answer the worker’s questions. [ 14 ] While the mother said that A. no longer had lice, the worker examined A.’s head and confirmed that she still had lice. The worker gave the treatment to the mother to address the problem with the grandmother over the weekend. [ 15 ] When asked, the mother confirmed that she indeed she did lock the child in her room both at night and whenever she wanted “alone” time.

The worker told her it was a fire hazard and she could not continue to do so. When the worker asked to see A.’s room, the mother was reluctant and tried to block her view. There was a “putrid” odour emanating from the room. There was a single bare mattress and a few bare pillows. The mattress had a large yellow and brown stain in the centre that the mother said was from A. “messing herself” the night before. There were also a number of other dried stains. The mother was told to remove the locks and replace the mattress, using a full plastic cover to protect the new one.

The worker also noted broken windows in the living room and windows with no locks. [ 16 ] On September 29, 2003, the school said that once again A. arrived at school with head lice. The school expressed concern about the medication that the mother was taking for her collarbone was interfering with her sight and impairing her judgement. The principal also noted that the mother had told A.’s teacher that she had broken her collar bone when she was pushed down the stairs by her boyfriend. [ 17 ] On October 1, 2003, the worker purchased an alarm for A.’s door and attended to install it.

When she arrived, loud music was playing and the mother was downstairs. The mother said that she did not know how to get rid of the lice and behaved as if she were under the influence of drugs. The worker discovered that the mother had thrown out the old mattress as requested but that the child was now using a chair cushion as a bed which was too small for her body. Further the child was locked in her room just wearing pants. The room smelled strongly of urine and feces.

The mother said that she would not remove the locks. [ 18 ] After consulting with her supervisor, the decision was made to apprehend the child given the ongoing concerns: the mother’s failure • to treat the child’s lice problems, • to obtain proper clean mattress and bedding for the child, and • to remove the locks from the child’s door despite the society’s direction. [ 19 ] The society was particularly concerned about the fact that the mother continued to lock the child in her room while she was downstairs listening to music. [ 20 ] When they re-attended to apprehend the child, the mother was cutting A.’s hair with scissors and explained that it was to get rid of the lice.

Upon learning about the apprehension, the mother got on the telephone and would not get off the phone to discuss their concerns or to say goodbye or hug A.. She refused to collect any belongings for the child and appeared reluctant to tell them about the child’s medications. [ 21 ] At the society’s office, the child was observed to have an extremely full diaper, and was dirty and had an odour about her. Her hair had been cut in a ragged uneven manner and her head was covered in head lice.

The child’s head was also covered in bumps and the child seemed to be banging her head and hitting herself in the head with her fist. [ 22 ] The mother refused to have any contact with the society or discuss access for days saying that she was too busy. At court October 6, 2003, six days after the apprehension, the mother walked away from the worker who was trying to set up access without asking how the child was or setting up access. [ 23 ] On October 7, 2003, the principal and educational assistance at the child’s school commented on the dramatic and positive change in A. since she had been in foster care.

The principal noted that the child appeared clean and happy. [ 24 ] As the mother said that she was busy, the first access visit was not scheduled until October 16, 2003, over two weeks after the apprehension. However, she did not attend as she had been too busy to obtain proof from her doctor or the public health nurse to confirm that she no longer had head lice.

[ 25 ] The society received information from the mother’s doctor that he had spent a half hour with her and that she had been unable to keep a straight thought in her head and wondered if she had a cognitive problem. The doctor said that she had had a head injury: she had been hit on the head in an abusive relationship. [ 26 ] When the foster mother contacted the mother for information on where to obtain the child’s liquid supplement, the mother provided inaccurate information.

It was the grandmother who gave the name of the drug store where the supplement and prescription medications were available. [ 27 ] It was noted in access that the child was more focused on interacting with her grandmother and grandfather than the mother. It was the grandparents who ensured that the child had a snack and who sang songs with the child. [ 28 ] During this time period, it was reported by a worker from Waterloo Housing that the mother appeared dizzy and spacey at times and that her attention span was very limited.

Further the mother appeared unable to deal with her own head lice. [ 29 ] On November 27, 2003, the grandmother told the society that the child had been in the grandparents’ care every weekend until they became superintendants at which time it changed to alternate weekends.

She also noted that the mother had had relief three nights per week from 4pm to 8pm. [ 30 ] It was noted in the Statement of Agreed Facts that even when A. was in the mother’s care, she spent little time with her daughter given the amount of time that A. spent at school, with her grandparents, with a worker from Extend-A-Family or locked in her room. It concluded that “it is evident that (the mother’

s) ability to parent A. is limited”. The grandmother also said that the mother had seizures as a result of a fall in the airport and that she was on anti-seizure medication. She estimated that the last seizure was probably two years ago. [ 31 ] During this time period the society had difficulty having the mother follow through with meeting with a worker.

On February 25, 2004, A. was found to be a child in need of protection and an eight month society wardship order was made. [ 32 ] Since the apprehension, the foster parents noted no issue with the child wetting or soiling, trying to get out of her room or removing her bedding during the night, all of which had been concerns reported by the mother. [ 33 ] During this period of supervision, the mother was not cooperative with the society. While she attended for a substance abuse assessment, the scores were not reliable and the mother refused to attend any screens. Further she acknowledged ongoing marijuana use.

She was unable to maintain a stable residence, moving a number of times and often refusing to provide her addresses or any contact information to the society. [ 34 ] Her doctor told the society that the mother had significant physical limitations due to left arm clavicle issues as well as significant psychological problems that have not been clearly identified. [ 35 ] In June 2004, the mother reduced her access to biweekly contact but then failed to attend a number of scheduled visits without any prior notification.

As the mother had not addressed any of her issues and as the grandparents were unable to care for A. on a permanent basis due to their own health issues but wished to have access every second weekend, a consent order of crown wardship with access was made on March 9, 2005. Current Information [ 36 ] The society became re-involved with the mother as a result of information received from public health about the mother’s pregnancy. There were concerns that the mother had cancelled a recent appointment and had presented as very anxious and stressed.

The public health nurse told the society that the mother had life skills limitations and • she did not have a bank account but was cashing her Ontario Disability cheques (ODSP) at Money Mart • she had no valid health card and unable to see the specialist • she had no crib, no car seat • she had difficulty budgeting. [ 37 ] It did appear however that the mother was meeting weekly with the hospital obstetric social worker. Further, the mother indicated that she had support from a neighbourhood association, a local church and neighbours.

The mother told the worker that she had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression and took prescribed drugs for those conditions. Although the worker attempted to reach the maternal grandmother to investigate her potential support, the worker’s telephone call was never returned.

[ 38 ] As a result of information about the mother’s various diagnoses and limitations and the concerns about the history of both parents, the child was apprehended from the hospital January 7, 2010. [ 39 ] At the time that the child was still in the hospital, there were maternal family members who indicated an interest in being part of a plan to look after the child. At different times, two of the mother’s brothers and their respective spouses indicated an interest in putting in a plan.

However, as a result of the lack of support by the parents and the history of involvement of the society due to concerns about substance abuse, domestic violence and financial challenges in one brother’s family, neither plan was assessed. THE MOTHER’S PLAN [ 40 ] The mother wants the child placed in her care.

While the workers have acknowledged that she is a likeable person, as a result of their interactions with the mother, the society has taken the position that she lacks the capacity to parent this child. [ 41 ] There are a number of concerns raised by the society about her ability to provide stable long term care for the child. Health [ 42 ] In 2009 the mother underwent a psychological assessment by a psychiatrist due to concerns expressed by her family physician.

As a result of that assessment, she was diagnosed with panic disorder with agoraphobia based on information provided by the mother felt fearful going outside her home as she feared being attacked. The mother also spoke about occasional auditory hallucinations but that they were “good voices”. She also complained that she often forgot things. [ 43 ] The mother was also diagnosed with anxiety and depression and was prescribed medication for these concerns. In November 2009, the public health nurse noted that she found the mother to be very anxious and stressed and that the anxiety impacted the mother’s functioning.

Unfortunately there has been concern at times about the mother’s compliance with the medications prescribed. [ 44 ] The mother appeared to be anxious about a number of routine things: for example, the worker went with her to have the screen completed as she was significantly fearful about the test. [ 45 ] Different doctors also were concerned about psychological problems that the mother suffered from as a result of her fall from a bicycle in 2002.

It was generally felt that there may have been head trauma resulting in injury that might be interfering with her ability to understand and follow through on suggestions. The psychiatrist concluded that there was “modest to severe impairment” in the mother’s Global assessment of Functioning. Further there had been a history of seizures with the mother noting her last seizure being about two-three years ago although she could not specifically remember. [ 46 ] Doctors have noted that they felt that the mother was exhibiting unusual behaviours.

Further, on occasion the doctors noted that the mother would report inconsistent information. One example was that she had never smoked but also had reported that she had quit smoking. One doctor observed that sometimes the mother was “more present” in the conversation than at other times. [ 47 ] When asked about her mental state, the mother said that she has had postpartum depression. She noted that she had been trying to get help and spoke about not staying at home.

Unfortunately, no matter what her counsel asked her, the mother seemed unable to explain what she meant. [ 48 ] In cross-examination, she acknowledged the diagnosis of agoraphobia but noted that she disagreed. She testified that she suffers from anxiety and then added that if she feels she can be pushed into a corner then she defends herself.

She explained that being pushed into a corner meant offended in any way. [ 49 ] Another odd issue with the mother is in spite of her history and the evidence, she is absolutely convinced that she knows exactly what should be done for the child and she resents any direction from the foster mother or anyone else. She said that her nurturing was breast-feeding and her responsibility was to keep the child “happy and humble and safe”. She stated that she deserves a second chance. She later explained that humble meant relaxed, calm, happy and peaceful. [ 50 ] There were also concerns about the mother’s physical health.

She has been diagnosed with asthma and kidney problems. She complained about her chronic pain, something that she notes continues at this time. She told the court that she injured her shoulder- broke her clavicle- in the bike accident in 2002 and told the court that she has trouble carrying bags and her guitar. [ 51 ] She said that she was trying to train her dog to walk beside the bike but she had a seizure and hit the curb with her head. She told the court that she had had the seizure because she was over-excited and had had a glass of tequila and there were no brakes on the bike.

The mother kept saying that she looked like a china doll wrapped up in a big bike. [ 52 ] The mother told the court that she had suffered brain injury when she was beaten by a previous partner. She said that there were abnormal lines left on her brain. She said that she had her first seizure in 1993 or 1994. [ 53 ] It appears that she needs assistance to complete even simple housekeeping chores such as cooking and cleaning and has a housekeeper provided through ODSP every two weeks. There were times in access that she was unable to sit on the floor with the child due to the pain.

[ 54 ] The mother also told the court that she has had ongoing stomach problems since the C-section to have the child. [ 55 ] The mother told the court that the pain in her back and feet was from walking, taking the bus and not wearing the proper shoes. She stated that she continues to have that pain from time to time but saw a specialist and has exercises. Substance Abuse [ 56 ] In 2009, the psychiatrist also diagnosed the mother with a substance abuse disorder as a result of her use of drugs and alcohol.

The father testified that during the beginning of their relationship, the mother would smoke marijuana a couple of times per week. The mother confirmed that she used marijuana while she was in a relationship with the father. The mother told the worker in November 2009 that she had quit smoking and marijuana. Her screen was negative for marijuana and alcohol. Lack of Insight, Comprehension and Focus [ 57 ] There have been numerous times that workers dealing with the mother have been concerned about her ability to understand what was going on or to converse about matters in a rational manner.

There have been times that workers have been concerned about her demeanour: she has been noted to sometimes appear to have a “vacant stare”. They have felt it necessary to rephrase what it is they are saying to try and get the mother to understand. Indeed one worker felt it necessary to draw a diagram to explain her role within the society. Another worker noted that it is not always apparent what the mother is trying to say when she is speaking. What the mother is saying is often irrational and does not make sense. [ 58 ] At times the mother appears to have difficulty remaining focused.

It was thought that the mother found the presence of relatives distracting when they were visiting in the hospital a few days after the child’s birth. Despite instructions on three different occasions, the mother seemed unable to complete the Statement of Live Birth. [ 59 ] Further, it was observed that the mother was easily confused and overwhelmed in access. The more people present during access the more distracted she was. She became upset about other people in access holding her baby. [ 60 ] Her difficulties in managing her own life were reflected in a number of ways.

She did not appear to have any identification or a health card despite being pregnant and in the need of referrals to specialists. Her home was initially very cluttered. [ 61 ] The mother appeared unable to respond appropriately in conversations with the workers. She was noted to speak slow and was difficult to follow. She struggled with redirection in access. Further she was unable to comprehend changes in the access

schedule and be child-focused. She was unhappy about the father’s extra access even though it was explained to her that it was for the purpose of attending the Make the Connection program, something that she would do once he was finished. The worker had to explain any changes to access several times and write them on a card to make sure that the mother understood. [ 62 ] There was similar confusion in her evidence at trial.

Unfortunately this confusion in the mother’s testimony occurred throughout her efforts to provide the court with her evidence; it was clear to the court that the mother routinely had difficulty processing and communicating information. There were many times that she could not understand the questions posed and often the exact meaning of her statements was difficult to decipher. Her reactions such as laughing were at odds at times with the questions asked. [ 63 ] In her evidence, the mother was almost arrogant in the way that she dismissed out of hand any of the concerns in access.

Further she seemed to have in her mind that she was being used by the access centre as an example of how to parent and therefore felt exploited. She told the assessor that she did not need any advice from the workers. Further the only worker she liked was the one who asked her questions about her life. [ 64 ] When asked how she was taking care of herself, the mother stated that she brushed her teeth and “put the cap back on”. It was odd that she chose that as she went on to say that she had all of her teeth except for her four “fangs” removed in July.

Ultimately the mother did go on to say that she was eating properly. [ 65 ] Her lack if insight into the situation was inexplicable. She told the court that she had a life to live and in regards to the child before this court, there was no such thing as giving up. When her counsel asked how it was different from 2005 when she agreed to crown wardship for her other daughter, she said that it was different because she had raised that daughter for “nine wonderful years”. [ 66 ] It was chilling to hear her call those years “wonderful” when one looks at the filth and neglect that her daughter was subjected to.

The mother went on in her evidence and took no responsibility for the condition of that daughter. She said that she was “holding tough”-she was “holding strong” before that daughter’s apprehension. She denied being under the influence of any drugs or alcohol while parenting her first daughter. [ 67 ] When asked how her life would change if the child was placed with her, the mother said that she would see changes but there would still be smiles and still play the guitar for her. When asked what role the society would have, she said that she could not see that far in the future.

The mother then reiterated that the foster mother was like a sister to her and that from the child’s perspective she has two mothers. [ 68 ] Throughout this evidence there continued to be times where there were pauses and the mother was not responsive. When asked if she thought that the child knew what was going on, the mother answered “to a degree, yes”. When asked why the child was apprehended, the mother said that they looked at the papers and saw that her other daughter was a crown ward.

Co-operation [ 69 ] While for the most part the mother provided consents for the society to obtain information and was not hostile despite knowing that they were about to apprehend the child, at times the mother would not look at the worker or speak to the worker. The worker commented that the mother appeared to have difficulty trusting people.

However, the society was satisfied that there were no concerns that the mother would abscond with the child from the hospital. [ 70 ] The mother also responded to the society’s concerns about her small apartment being too crowded with stuff and her lack of preparation for a new baby. The mother did some cleanup and obtained some of the necessary items for the child. The worker was invited into her home to see the work she had done.

However, the mother never invited the worker to see her new apartment. [ 71 ] Although the mother knew that she was directed to attend the Making the Connection program, she only attended five of the nine sessions and due to her lack of attendance, her goals were not achieved. For one visit, she told the worker that she was too fatigued to go from access to the program. Another time she made it clear that she did not want to go.

She also complained about the distance to the program although it appears that transportation was provided. [ 72 ] When she testified, the mother said that she did not have a ride and she had other commitments. She said that while she couldn’t remember the number of sessions attended, she felt that her attendance had been pretty good. Then the mother started adding other obstacles: back pain, no tickets to get back, doctors regarding her stomach and so on.

She then noted that she remembered but could not remember. [ 73 ] When asked what she learned, she hesitated and then said that she learned that communication is the best thing in life. [ 74 ] The mother herself said that her relationship with the workers was difficult because they interrupted her access and because she got no help. She then qualified her comment to say some workers helped by showing her which way to go. She said that she has the “sources” now if she needs them and that the foster mother is like the sister she never had.

Relationships [ 75 ] The mother acknowledges that she has had a number of partners. Her first partner that she met when she was young was physically abusive to her. But although she left him, she ended up resuming the relationship. [ 76 ] Her next serious partner used crack.

Her third partner, the father of her son, pushed her downstairs. [ 77 ] The father before the court was her next serious relationship. [ 78 ] The mother testified that when the father was around, he was always the one making the decisions so she was confused. [ 79 ] Given the father’s failure to notice the mother’s obvious communication difficulties, it may very well be the case that most of their communication was one-sided.

Also it was noticed by a worker that whenever a family member was present with the mother, that person tended to speak for the mother and the mother said little. [ 80 ] The mother testified that that her relationship with the father was now okay. She said that she did not feel nervous. When asked what made her nervous before, she said even when he talked loud “and his foot would go”-when he was getting kind of “antsy” -he has to go-he has to get out-he’s getting nervous-spilling water. [ 81 ] The mother told the court that she did expect that the father would help her if the child was to be placed with her.

She suggested that he might be “a little bit of help”, perhaps a ride. She said that she would like him involved but only on his “calm” days and he would have to take his medicine. She said that she was used to be calm because she was a song writer. [ 82 ] When questioned about what a not calm day was for the father, she said that it was hard to say since she was used to him and would leave the room if she did not feel comfortable or loved at that time. [ 83 ] The mother confirmed that the father made most of the decisions when they were together but she said that she was on the sensitive side.

She said that if someone said something the wrong way, it would make her cry. When she was asked to clarify, she said that there was no communication. When asked if the father was controlling of her, she smiled and said “sometimes but (she’

s) sure that he didn’t really mean to be”. [ 84 ] When the court asked the mother to clarify, she admitted that the father could be verbally abusive, controlling and obsessive as she had indicated in her answer to the application. She told the assessor that the father became insulting and undermining of her when his mental health was unstable. Supports [ 85 ] The mother appears to have been able to find personal support through a self help group designed to assist people who have mental health and addiction challenges to help and support each other. She volunteers as a leader of a group and participates in a

number of different ways.

She told the court that the self-esteem groups keep her “on her feet” and the other groups help with her “emotional ordeal”. [ 86 ] The mother also has the housekeeping assistance provided bi-weekly and financially she has the support of ODSP. [ 87 ] While the self-help alliance appears to provide the mother with opportunities of involvement with others struggling and through that involvement an increase in confidence, that organization is not set up to assist families and their children. [ 88 ] The mother also identified help from the food bank, from the “government building across the road” (?) and her mother and brother.

Then she suggested both her brothers. When asked how they would support her, she said “by conversation”. In cross- examination she admitted that she did not know why the society was involved with her brother and had never asked but minimized the concern. When asked what support he would be for her if the child were placed in her care, she said that he would be able to reunite with his niece again and then be there to help her stay calm or “vice versa”-in other words, to help her stay away from danger.

She explained that to be any kind of abuse. [ 89 ] Other than those general thoughts, at this time she does not appear to have any specific assistance identified from her family. As has been noted, one of her brothers and his family has been struggling with issues of domestic violence, substance abuse and financial difficulties. No one appeared at trial to assure the court that they would assist the mother.

Indeed, when one looks at the mother’s difficulties with parenting her first daughter, it appears that most family support came from her mother and not anyone else. [ 90 ] Also the mother’s own evidence would suggest that she does not see a lot of her siblings although she regularly sees her mother.

When speaking about one brother, she noted that it was good when she could get a hold of him as he was the only one who could tune her guitar. [ 91 ] Further, given the maternal grandmother’s ongoing contact with the mother’s other daughter who is a crown ward, the lack of communication between that grandmother and the society and her apparent decision not to be involved with this child are somewhat surprising. However, the mother did not provide the society with consent to speak to the maternal grandmother and neither has the maternal grandmother stepped forward to assist in the mother’s plan.

It may be that she has her hands full as she continues to have the mother’s first daughter who remains in long term foster care for access every other weekend when they are not on duty as superintendents of the apartment building. [ 92 ] The mother identified that she had her “safe places”. When asked what they were, she said “group” and the “food bank” and any place that she knew as safe but could not explain. [ 93 ] The mother called a former placement student form the Cambridge Active Self Help (the Self Help Alliance) who said that the mother was calm, friendly and open.

She testified that when she started, the mother was not as confident as she is now. Interaction with the Child [ 94 ] There was evidence that at times the mother was able to soothe and comfort the child during access. There were often kisses and hugs upon arriving and leaving access. She was able to breastfeed the child and even to supply breast milk for other times. During breast feeding, she appeared to be able to make eye contact with the child. [ 95 ] However, when she became upset from reading a letter from the father, she was unable to focus on the child and asked for the worker to assist.

Further, the mother was slow to end the visits. [ 96 ] At times the mother appears to overestimate the abilities of the child at a particular age. Once when she was upset with the society, the mother said that the child knew and was wiping tears from the mother’s eyes and yet the child was clearly not old enough to do so.

Her attempt to attribute things that the child could do before the child could clearly do so had happened on a few occasions and was concerning as she did not appear to comprehend the phases of child development. [ 97 ] There were concerns in access about the mother being able to recognize and respond to the child’s cues. Further sometimes the mother did not seem to notice what the child was doing: one time she was not aware that the child had put a glue stick in her mouth.

While there were times when the mother helped the child walk around or encouraged the child to crawl, there was concern about the amount of time that the child spent held by her in access. One of the major observations about the mother’s access was that she kept the child in her arms or on her lap. Often she did not provide the child with the opportunity to explore her environment. During one entire visit, the mother held the child except for one time allowing her to walk around.

THE FATHER’S PLAN [ 98 ] During the society’s initial involvement with the father, he made it clear that he wished the child to be placed with both the mother and himself. He stated many times to the workers that he loved the mother and wanted to parent together. The father felt that her family had interfered with their relationship as they did not approve of him. [ 99 ] The father ultimately came to the conclusion that the mother was not interested in a relationship and so now he seeks to have the child placed with him.

While the father has a number of children and step-children, he has not participated as a responsible

parent for any length of time due to his abuse of alcohol and drugs. Now, at the age of 54, he is seeking to become a single parent for the child before this court. [ 100 ] There are a number of issues that have been raised regarding his plan. The Father’s History [ 101 ] The father testified that while his father was “English”, his mother was Ojibwa. His family had left Sioux Lookout when he was very young. As has been noted, the father was very successful in high school; he turned down a scholarship to study in the arts in order to work at General Motors in Oshawa at eighteen years of age.

He said that he did not originally smoke or drink as he had seen what it had done to his parents. He said that when he was age 18 to 21, he was a “powerful, fast individual”. He said that his wife was very upset when he had his first cigarette. Subsequently he had his first drink, vodka, due to peer pressure and that night had his first blackout. He said that he was so scared that he did not drink for two weeks. [ 102 ] He told the court that he had had a lot of fights when he drank and could only remember 75% of them. Once he ended up cutting both wrists and spent a lot of time in treatment and hospitals.

He told the court that he would be okay for awhile and then he would start drinking again. One example was when his group had a “gig” in Toronto, he started drinking. When he went to Buffalo, he was out for four weeks and has no recollection of the first week. [ 103 ] When ultimately his wife and her son left him, he “self-destructed” and spent two months in a psychiatric hospital. [ 104 ] The father testified that in 1987, while drinking he hurt someone very badly and has not had any alcohol since.

It was about this time that he started a new relationship with his third wife. [ 105 ] As a result of the terrible fights and physical injury, there was great concern that the father had suffered brain damage. [ 106 ] Throughout this time period, when the father was sober, he worked all the overtime he could get and his family saw little of him. [ 107 ] In 1996, while his own father was very sick, the father decided to use crack cocaine. He liked it as it helped with the pain in his back and for three to four years used crack “on and off”.

With the help of the cocaine, he was able to play ball again and work more overtime. He told the court that he always went out “looking good”. He said that he had to be careful not to overload on the crack; he had to make it last. [ 108 ] The father noted that after that he “lost it” a few times and was out of control and in fights with dealers. [ 109 ] As a result of a confrontation with members of the “Mafia” in Detroit, the father was severely hurt and spat blood for thirty days. Although he wanted to go back after them, he ended up in jail.

He noted that he was “enraged to get out” and did “pushups” on his fists to get ready to fight again. He told the court somewhat proudly that he “ran” “PC” as they were terrified of him. Again, the father seemed proud of the fact that he talked his then wife into getting $5000 to “bail out six guys”. [ 110 ] He said that he and his third wife broke up for awhile and he joined Alcoholics Anonymous (AA).

At this time he and his wife had a son, J, whom he considered a “miracle” as he had been told he would not be able to have any children. [ 111 ] Despite AA, crack once again “got the better” of the father and in 2000 his third wife left him. Through this time he was on and off drugs. In 2007, the father went after a drug dealer for “ripping” him “off”. The father said that he was so “upset and sick” at the time that he engraved the person’s name on a bullet; it was “crazy thinking”. [ 112 ] The father noted that he had lost three years to Homewood: two for crack and one since he had wanted to hurt himself.

He said that he had had over 30 admissions to psychiatric hospitals. [ 113 ] In the 80’s, the father acknowledged being charged with theft under and uttering threats but was never charged for his “slips” into cocaine use. [ 114 ] In speaking about his relationships, the father admitted that he did not mean to be controlling but if he was it was to try to help. He also acknowledged that he maybe gets a little loud. [ 115 ] The father said that he was not using in 2007 and then started again and went to Homewood.

He then was clean between March 2008 and June 2008 and suggested that it was a “nice stretch”. [ 116 ] The father said that he was admitted to Homewood again from June 2008 to late 2008 in part because he went off his medication. [ 117 ] While his uncles wanted him to come up to Sioux Lookout until Christmas, the father had met the mother before this court in October 2008 court and did not go. [ 118 ] The father testified that he met her at Safeway. She was short $1.50 so he paid.

As she told him that her feet hurt, he offered her a ride and despite the fact that he was a stranger, she accepted and he drove her home. Then they started going out: a show, supper at his place, church. The father described her as “perfect”-“lovely and very smart”. He said that while he knew that her children were not in her care, he thought that it was just a financial issue. He acknowledged that they planned to start with access to the mother’s daughter and then have her fulltime to live with them. They also expected to start access with her son.

The father testified that he completed counselling at Homewood and was doing well until his mother died May 21, 2009. At that time, he

was not at her side and he said that he had a “big resentment” toward his sister as he feels that she should have warned him earlier about the rapidly deteriorating condition of his mother. He said that he was unable to let it go and he phoned her every night to yell at her. [ 119 ] Then on yet another occasion in November 2009, despite needing to pick up the mother before this court and his son from kindergarten and his brother, and despite the warning of his sister not to do anything foolish, the father took crack cocaine. He took so much that his heart stopped.

He testified that he was in pretty bad shape: “remorse, fear and anger”. [ 120 ] The father said that he needed to “take away anger toward” the mother who refused to move. [ 121 ] When the mother became pregnant, the father was happy-he considered it a “second miracle” as he had managed to have a second child despite what the doctors had said. He noted that the mother was scared about the pregnancy and that he learned a bit more about the circumstances regarding the loss of her other children to the society. Although he offered to have her move in with him, the mother refused.

He said he became aware that the society was involved when the mother was seven or eight months pregnant. [ 122 ] While he did help the mother move into her new place, at some point he ended up in an argument with her sister. The sister wanted the family to get together to figure out a way to keep the child but the father said that the child was his and the mother’s and he ended up walking out. [ 123 ] The father told the court that the start of their breakup was when she did not want to go to Toronto with him and did not want to be with him.

Anger Management/Mental Health/Addictions [ 124 ] The father has been through a great deal of trauma in his life. First he grew up in a home with an abusive alcoholic father and has vivid memories of the chaos and destruction his father wrought in the home. Despite that, he managed to be successful in high school, no doubt due in large part to the protection and nurturing of his mother.

However, he then got into alcohol followed by drugs and spent many years in fights, in hospitals and in jails. [ 125 ] It is difficult to separate the father’s issues of anger and substance abuse as it is clear that while sometimes anger triggers the use of substances, inevitably angry behaviour is the result of the use of alcohol or drugs. Therefore, the father is at risk of drug use when he gets angry and his anger is a terrible result of using drugs. [ 126 ] The father repeatedly testified about anger and frustration.

He noted that when he did not understand something, he would get upset. [ 127 ] While he usually is outgoing and friendly, it has been noted by the worker that he can change quickly when challenged. He has been agitated and angry at things not going as he wanted them to go. He became quite upset because the worker did not try and retry his cell phone until he reached him. He left a message saying that he was very hurt and upset. The next day the father told the worker that he was very upset but his sponsor had talked him through it and he did not drink or use.

His moods have been noted to change quickly from pleasant to aggressive and back to pleasant. [ 128 ] At the hospital after the child was born, security had to be called as a result of a confrontation between the father and the mother’s family. The family members shared the mother’s concern that the father tried to be very controlling of the mother. They were concerned that he had stated that “girls are worthless”. [ 129 ] The father explained that he and the mother did not see “eye to eye” in the hospital and he was asked to leave. He said that he felt that the family did not “approve” of him.

Later in January, when the father was late for access, he said that he was very upset and blamed the alarm clock which he said he had thrown out. [ 130 ] The father told the court that when he became upset, the rage would take over. He said that he had a pain in his head. He said that there is scar tissue in his brain that should be fixed. He noted that he would “do well for while” but then the anger would take over.

He testified that he could “forgive females a lot more than males” as “females are angels” so if can’t get along, walk away. [ 131 ] It is of great concern that at the time of trial the father had only been drug-free for sixteen months. The father told the worker that cocaine is his demon. Further, the longest time that he has gone without drugs is only three years. He said that he returns to using drugs because of “anger and fear”.

This is particularly concerning because he terminated counselling supposedly successfully a number of years ago but clearly given his relapses he continues to is struggle with some unresolved issues that trigger his anger. [ 132 ] The father has been diagnosed as bipolar and is medicated with at least two prescribed drugs.

In order to maintain his sobriety and stabilize his mental health, the father • attends AA meetings almost every day-sometimes more than once-sometimes he stays 2.5 hours as he stays for counselling • attends the Saturday night AA meeting and is responsible for literature and medallions • attends church Wednesdays and Sundays • prays at night and sometimes three times through the day • maintains two journals daily to keep him focused –in one he sets out what he is going to do the next day

• reads four books by noon to “help (him) through the day”, “a lovely routine” that he enjoys • has two six foot posters on the walls of his home setting out the 12 AA steps so that he can review them routinely through the day to assist in his recovery. [ 133 ] The father told the worker that he writes down his entire day to keep focused and on track. The father told the court that he “totally enjoys both AA and church because it is (his) medicine” and then added that he enjoyed taking his prescription medications for his bipolar as well.

He said that while there are open meetings that children and families can attend, he also attends the closed discussion meetings as he wants to hear as much as possible. He said that while once he went to the meetings to satisfy others, now he goes because he needs it like medicine. He also noted that he can call someone to come to his home if he is struggling with his addiction and is unable to attend a meeting. [ 134 ] In explaining some of his difficulties, the father said that he would go off his medication and then would be going “100 miles per hour”.

He would not sleep and would bump into the wrong crowd and start using. [ 135 ] The father admitted in cross-examination that as recently as a “couple of years ago” he failed to maintain his bipolar medication.

Further, although he has been in AA for 24 years and has not had a drink, he has acknowledged that he has attended for awhile and then stopped, just like his medication. [ 136 ] The father acknowledged that despite being happy about the resumption of his relationship with his children and grandchildren, nevertheless he still again “got mad” and upset, bumped into a few friends and was “off to the races again”. [ 137 ] Then when his next relationship fell apart, the father said that he was carrying old anger.

He felt that some guys owed him and he wanted to collect. [ 138 ] Despite having lived and studied addiction, the father testified that he did smoke cigarettes but not all that much and he could quit “no problem at all”. And yet he said that he did not have a cigarette prior to access so that he would not smell of smoke: so if it is so easy, it begs the question-why not quit? [ 139 ] He also acknowledged that any drug use or alcohol use was contrary to the expectations of AA and yet while attending AA he used marijuana. The father told the court that there was “no sobriety if one picked up a joint”.

The father explained that he has been terrified about returning to the use of alcohol. However, he thought “in the back of his mind” that he could control his use of pot and crack cocaine. [ 140 ] He testified that he is calmer and learning to be more patient and tolerant. He declared that he is now with the “winners, not the sick people”. He said he used to think he could help the world but now was concentrating on himself. [ 141 ] The nature of the father’s involvement in violence when he drinks or uses drugs is extreme. This is not a situation where the use of substance causes someone to lose a job or a home.

Instead the father’s clearly unresolved anger bursts through in raging violence and as he noted he looks for scores to settle. He has been in treatment 30-35 times for substance abuse and mental health issues in at least four different programs. He has been in four different psychiatric facilities with the longest stay being ten months. The father testified a number of times about his fear, rage and pain. [ 142 ] Further, no one appeared to be safe from his anger. He was charged with a mischief when he challenged his sister’s boyfriend to come out to fight and when he wouldn’t, he twisted his car aerial.

He acknowledged that he was not very nice to his sister. [ 143 ] Despite • being beaten so badly that long-term hospitalization was required • blackouts, weeks and even months of missing memory • losing spouses and family • months in psychiatric care • being incarcerated • possible brain damage and • feeling suicidal the father still returned to the use of substances when he became upset or felt like celebrating. [ 144 ] The father testified that despite having three years of doing well, “anger did (him) in” on his birthday. [ 145 ] The father also told the court that despite what he had been through, he would have the “odd” “joint” with the mother when she was using marijuana. [ 146 ] He identified his last use of drugs to be January 3, 2010, just before the child before this court was born, to celebrate his birthday.

Despite knowing that • he was an addict and what it had cost him • he was about to have the responsibility of a child

the father indulged himself and shared a “toke” with his brother. [ 147 ] As worker W observed in February 2011, the father has a pattern of managing stress by using cocaine. [ 148 ] The father told the worker C that he used crack regularly from 1995 to 2008.

He noted that he got blood poisoning from crack in December 2008. [ 149 ] On January 25, 2010, the father told the worker C that he had been clean for over a year except for a couple of slips: he said he used crack for a few days when his mother died May 2009, he used crack when he fought with the mother in November 2009, and had a birthday “toke” January 4, 2010. [ 150 ] There is an ongoing sense of pride in the father when he speaks about his past fights, rages and even hospitalizations that is worrisome.

As the worker W noted: the violence “defines a significant period of his life and creates an identity for him”. [ 151 ] The father speaks with pride about his own strength on a number of occasions. He testified that he was a strong man in his early twenties. Whenever he has the opportunity, the father tells people about the number of fights that he has been in and the number he has won. He told one worker C on one day that he had won 200 of his 300 fights then a couple of weeks later told her and worker W that he had won all but three of his 300 fights.

He told them that he “just loses it”. [ 152 ] After one particularly bad beating when his eyes were just slits, the father gained weight during his recovery and ended up at 240 pounds. The father testified that he trained every day and “by the Grace of God, friends and family” he was able to return to 180 pounds. [ 153 ] The court has already noted that he liked being able to be the strong man again while he used crack. He was able to return to playing baseball.

Further he said that the last time he used crack he used three “eight balls” of cocaine which would have killed most people but only put him in hospital, once again focusing with pride on his strength or stamina. [ 154 ] He also speaks with pride about his father being a strong man despite the way his father used his strength, terrifying the family with his drunken rages. [ 155 ] There are other issues of concern in terms of the father’s mental well-being. It was the observation of the workers often they were unable to follow the father’s conversations.

He would speak about one thing and without transition start talking about something else in a completely random fashion. His conversation was described as disjointed, scattered and fast. Further it was often one-sided and if someone tried to challenge him, he would become noticeably more agitated. [ 156 ] When the worker spoke to the father’s doctor on March 19, 2010, she was unable to provide much information. She did say it was her impression that he was more stable than in the past but acknowledged that the father had not talked about his addictions with her.

The father for some reason thought that he was still on probation while the probation officer noted that he had finished some time ago. [ 157 ] The father’s substance abuse is clearly connected with his mental health, his criminal activity and his history of non- compliance. Despite his assurances to the contrary, it would be very difficult for any worker to attempt to enforce any terms of supervision that a court might place on the father. Financial Stability [ 158 ] The father told the court that he started at GM October 4, 1986 at the age of eighteen.

He said that he stayed there because most of his family worked there. He also noted that he is grateful that the company stood beside him despite his difficulties with his addictions. He said that they understood that he was sick. He retired in 2006 and is drawing a full pension and is receiving a total of about $2500 each month. [ 159 ] The father has been living in Guelph for four years. He currently rents a condominium for $940 and only pays an extra approximately $200 for phone and cable. He has a purchase option on the home and would be able to put 10% of the rent toward the purchase price of $124,000.

As a result of a failed investment, he has a loan of $10,000 being repaid at just under $100 per month. Also he owes Canada Trust $450 and Zellers $4,000. He currently has a 2002 Buick Century which is paid for but continues to pay some money toward a truck that his son “wrote off”. He testified that he used about $200 each month for gas. [ 160 ] Despite the full pension, the father testified that he is financially “behind right now”.

In part that is related to the breakdown of his previous relationship in 2008 and in part related to his generosity toward his family including the children as well as some grandchildren. It appears that he is supporting a couple of the children in his home without their contribution or assistance as they have lost their jobs. [ 161 ] On one occasion it appears that the father promised to purchase his former partner’s children special blankets but had given the money to someone who owed a debt to people who were threatening to break his legs.

This is concerning for two reasons: first, it suggests that some of the father’s associates in 2008-2009 were involved in dubious pursuits, and second, the father was putting friends before his responsibility toward his family. [ 162 ] The father talked about trying to get part-time work. He talked about having worked temporarily a year ago for his sister’s landscaping business but due to injury he would not be prepared to help her again. He told workers that he found it difficult to pay for the

gas for his car to attend different meetings. Relationships [ 163 ] The father said that he has had 200 relationships with women twenty of which were serious. He testified that he was now in a relationship with B but that she had her own place.

He said that she wanted to stay on her own because her daughter was still with her but that they would probably get together after the daughter finished high school. [ 164 ] While she was not part of his plan and did not appear at court, the father suggested that maybe he and B could parent together. [ 165 ] There was no evidence to suggest that she was interested or available at this time to assist him in parenting a child placed in his care. [ 166 ] Further, the father did not explain how he was going to control the comings and goings of people in his condo.

He appears to always be trying to help people financially or with a roof over their head and he has acknowledged that he had made these decisions to his own detriment. He now is financially strapped with two dependent sons living with him and without the truck. He has said that he will be seeking part-time employment. [ 167 ] The court has concern that he will not be able to provide the routine and stability required by a young child. The father appears by his own evidence to always be in a relationship.

He noted that he had just gotten out of a bad relationship where he had lost everything when he started one with the mother. That bad relationship had started while they were both in a treatment program, something that was against the program rules.

Then he met the mother and when she decided to end the relationship, the father told the worker as late as March 2010 that he still loved the mother and that she was his life. [ 168 ] Now he is in another relationship. [ 169 ] It appeared that the father did not seem to understand the importance of having a well-thought out plan before the court in order to assure the child of a long term, stable placement. He asked the worker W at trial “if (his) friend became (his) partner, would (they) get the child?” Access [ 170 ] While the father has attended access regularly, there have been many concerns raised by staff.

A review of those concerns suggests that the father is not able to focus on the child’s needs during the access. [ 171 ] At times he has been non-responsive to the direction of the access supervisor. While the father has testified that he told the workers to speak up because he had a problem with his left hear and, therefore could not hear, that explanation of his behaviour does not ring true. There have been access visits where he struggled and yet was angry if the staff attempted to provide direction. The workers have found him defensive and unwilling to even acknowledge the issues.

He refused to view access support as something child-focused. [ 172 ] He has a routine which includes • taking the child to the washroom to wet and style her hair • changing the child into clothes that he has brought • reading and writing at length in the communication book while not paying any attention to the child • rubbing Vaseline for up to 20 minutes on the child’s body [ 173 ] There have been a number of concerns from staff about access: the father • spends a lot of time on his cell phone • puts excessive Vaseline on the child • does not wash his hands after putting the Vaseline on the child • takes a great number of pictures (up to 30) of the child with the flash going off right in her face • spends too much time writing in the communication book and not focused on the child • misses the child’s cues • will not follow staff’s redirection • is generally not child focused in the access

• holds the child too close to his face or hangs over too close to the child, one time even drooling on her face • leaving the child unsupervised on the change table despite caution • deliberately blocking the view of the child from the access supervisor so that the supervisor could not see when he continued behaviour that he had been cautioned about. [ 174 ] One particular concern emphasizes the father’s difficulty understanding and putting the child’s needs first.

When the mother’s access visits were moved from the afternoon to mornings on different days to accommodate the child’s afternoon nap, the father was upset despite the fact that it did not change his access at all. He raised the issue with the worker July 2, July 16 and October 28 but still did not seem to grasp why it had been changed. [ 175 ] It is also of concern that the father has exhibited some unusual behaviour with the child during access. He has been observed licking the child’s feet. He has also been noted to suck on the child’s hair on the top of her head.

Further, on October 7, 2010 he sang Happy Birthday to the child although it was certainly not her birthday. [ 176 ] The father in his evidence said that the “biggest highlight” of access for him was changing the child every visit. He said that he brought a new outfit for every access. During changing he would tickle her and she would laugh.

He also noted that they would sing and read but acknowledged that he spent too much time writing in the communication book. [ 177 ] When the court asked him to clarify that changing the child was his favourite part of access, the father reiterated that it was indeed but said that while he brought a different outfit to put on the child twice a week, half were from a thrift shop and half were brand new. Counselling and Programs [ 178 ] The father has attended and successfully completed four programmes: Making the Connection, Learning Begins, Nobody’s Perfect and For Fathers.

While the society has no complaint about his performance or attendance, they point out that most of the programmes are designed to build up the self esteem of parents and not to critique their parenting. Further, the courses made no difference in his access. The worker W observed that taking the courses did not assist him in his interaction with the child or assist in the “pervasive issues” of his mental health. Support [ 179 ] During the trial, he identified a number of family members who are “interested” in the child before the court.

He also stated that he could “expect help with” the child from his children, his brother and sisters. Although some family members live fairly far away, the father seemed confident that they will be able to help. [ 180 ] The difficulty is as noted by the father to a worker that they are busy “school and work”-with their own lives- and are not able to commit specifically to this child. At trial he said that his family wished him the best but cannot “raise” the child because of their own lives. There are no detailed proposals about anyone helping in a regular day to day or even weekly way.

Essentially the father would be parenting on his own, without specified relief from family members. [ 181 ] Further it appears that Dr. Perlman asked about speaking to his adult children as part of the PCA but the father said no. [ 182 ] When the father was testifying about alternatives, he spoke about moving with the child weekly from one relative’s home to another until the court was satisfied that he could manage on his own, acknowledging that it would be hard to move around.

This suggested that his family was unable to have him and his child with them to help out for any length of time. [ 183 ] Further he testified that he did attempt to see if there was anyone who could look after the child until she was five or six years of age but “did not push it”. [ 184 ] No member of his family testified at the trial. [ 185 ] Given the father’s view of the offers of help from the mother’s family, refusing them because it was his child and the mother’s child, perhaps it is not surprising that he has not proposed a family plan.

Certainly it is understandable that people have their own lives to live, their own children and financial responsibilities to attend to. [ 186 ] As part of his plan, the father has noted that he would take the child with him to some of the AA meetings and he would probably cut back on some. He has suggested that he might get his other children or his new relationship to be with the child at times. However, those potential supports did not testify and the details of their ability to actually help are not before the court.

Evidence of the Father’s Witnesses [ 187 ] The father’s pastor who has known him for three to four years testified that the father is a faithful, spirited and warm- hearted person who is more peaceful now than when he first met him. He said that the father was a likeable person who “loved to talk about his past”, often getting emotional when doing so. He said that the father was more agitated when he first met him. [ 188 ] Another witness DF testified that she met the father four to five years ago in AA. She explained that she was a full-time

student at university and was recovering from her use of drugs. She testified that both of her children had tested positive for cocaine at birth and were apprehended three times from her care due to her drug use. She attended treatment and joined AA and ultimately after a year in care the children were returned to her June 2006. She acknowledged in cross-examination that it was hard on children to be apprehended.

She said that she has not worked since the birth of her children in 2000 and “lost four years” due to her drug use. [ 189 ] DF testified that when she met the father five years ago she found him terrifying in the first conversation that they had. She said that she heard all his stories. She said that the father needs to be a big strong man and that it is about “pride and ego”. DF said that the father had a “big ego” and seemed to feel that it was a good thing that he hurt so many people. She said that she did not believe all of what he said.

She believes that he has issues regarding mental health including bipolar, addiction and violence. [ 190 ] DF said that she had left her children with the father for a “handful” of times as she considered him reliable and dependable enough. [ 191 ] DF made it clear that if the father used drugs she would not be a part of his life but if he wanted to recover she would be there. [ 192 ] The father’s third witness CL was also a minister who has known the father ten years.

As a result of attending at the hospital with the father when the paternal grandmother was very ill, he has met almost all of the father’s immediate family. He told the court that the family expressed fear about the father’s violence and that he met with the father regarding his anger issues. He told the court that his sisters said that “with the change of the seasons he would fall off the wagon”. [ 193 ] He said that he had witnessed the father’s interaction with his niece five to seven years ago while the father was still using and the interaction appeared normal.

He said that the father had to work hard at times to be stable. He said that he was aware of the father’s current financial struggles as he suddenly asked to borrow a large sum of money from him and also somewhat assertively asked him to drive him somewhere. He said that he was not usually so assertive so he knew that something was “amiss”. He said he could understand asking for money for gas but $100-200 was not gas money. [ 194 ] CL told the court that the father has gone from fearful and angry to happy.

In cross-examination, he said that the father said that the child had been apprehended due to the mother’s mental health issues and had not talked about why the child was in care. [ 195 ] CL testified that while the father would give everything he had away to those in greater need, he felt that the father needed to look after himself first. [ 196 ] All of the witnesses called have clearly provided the father with support and be part of the child’s community if placed in the father’s care.

However, given their own circumstances and the nature of their relationship with the father, it is doubtful that they could provide parenting assistance. Further it is clear that for DF she would be unable to assist the father if he should get into using drugs again. Parenting Capacity Assessment [ 197 ] On consent, a parenting capacity assessment (PCA) of the mother and father was ordered and completed in order to assist in the determination of the ability of the parents to parent the child F.L.M.E.C. [ 198 ] Following a voir dire, Dr.

Perlman was found to be an expert in clinical psychology, parenting capacity assessment and attachment assessment on consent. [ 199 ] The assessor, Dr. Perlman, explained why she chose to do the tests she did for each parent. She explained the procedures followed. Further Dr. Perlman also cautioned the court about the limitations of the tests used.

She noted that she had invited the parents to have any supports they wished contact her. [ 200 ] The assessor also noted that the PCA was not a comprehensive psychological assessment but was intended to identify and screen issues that may affect parenting. [ 201 ] It should also be noted that a review of the facts on which she based her conclusions does not reveal any significant differences as compared to those in the evidence before the court. Mother [ 202 ] In her interview with the mother, Dr, Perlman noted that she had some difficulty reporting duration and sequence of events.

However, the mother was cooperative and pleasant although she did require some refocusing. [ 203 ] As part of the assessment, a number of tests were completed. The mother’s overall performance on the intelligence test indicated that she functions at the disability range of cognitive abilities. While she denied experiencing depression, her responses suggest that she suffers from symptoms of anxiety despite being on a prescribed medication for anxiety. The mother’s responses on the projective tests indicated that • the mother gets emotionally overwhelmed easily • her defences are fragile and coping ability poor

• her ability to contain affect is limited and • her reality testing is poor. [ 204 ] The assessor noted that the mother had a potential capacity to recover. At trial, Dr. Perlman clarified that this capacity refers to small things. The mother indicated to the assessor that she was hoping to have all three of her children back in her care. [ 205 ] In her testimony about the mother, Dr. Perlman said that cognitive disability was not by itself necessarily a contrary indication of parenting but certainly was always a risk factor. The question then becomes what else is happening in the parent’s life?

What supports and what cognitive defects? The ability to process information and understand and learn may be difficult. [ 206 ] Dr. Perlman confirmed that the fact that the mother still continues to suffer anxiety despite being medicated is another risk factor. She noted that the mother would be anxious in some circumstances and angry in others. She also emphasized that her reality testing is very poor. [ 207 ] The mother’s profile on the Rorschach and Thematic Apperception Test reflected the profile of someone whose threshold triggers are low, a person easily overwhelmed. Every day life can be an effort.

Father [ 208 ] The tests administered on the father suggest that he is of normal intelligence, perhaps with some learning disabilities. As the father had been through a lot of serious trauma Dr. Perlman complete those tests with him. She noted that he is quite effective at pushing out intrusive memories. The father suffers from significant trauma and makes the effort to contain it. Considering his experiences, Dr.

Perlman testified that he has done quite well. [ 209 ] His responses on the Trauma Symptom Inventory indicate that he suffers from a significant effect of trauma and has to make a constant effort to contain the hurt and eject or reframe the memories of the trauma. [ 210 ] In the projective tests, the father’s responses focused on physical strength and combat. There was evidence that relationships were important to him.

Themes that emerged included frustration, burden and fatigue. [ 211 ] In her evidence, the assessor confirmed that the father made the remark that he consciously tries to overcome his anger and frustration. He tends to become nervous and upset but he contains it consciously. [ 212 ] In the projective tests, there are themes of control and fighting. When someone has had an eventful childhood, one looks for that person’s faculty to self-soothe. If it is not readily available, then that poses a risk. [ 213 ] She confirmed that the father had no evidence of a psychiatric or personality disorder. [ 214 ] At trial, Dr.

Perlman said that the father was in denial and suppression of his problems, not coming to terms or understanding them. She stated that the mental health issues cloud the diagnoses. Interaction with the Child [ 215 ] Dr. Perlman observed each parent separately with the child. She reported that the mother held her most of the visit. She noted that when the child rejected some food, the mother appeared confused, not understanding the cues. She said that there was little play and that the child initiated little interaction with the mother. The child had no opportunity to explore her environment. [ 216 ] At trial, Dr.

Perlman testified that the child looked at her in a manner that indicated that she had had enough food. However, it took the mother some time to realize that the child had stopped feeding. Dr. Perlman also said that the child was passively accepting the affection but did not engage in much eye contact. [ 217 ] The assessor observed the father to shower the child with affection. He placed his face close to hers for a long time using a strong voice. He seemed unaware that his manner of relating to her might be imposing. Dr.

Perlman reported that it was hard to escape the impressions that the child experienced stimulus overload. The child had no opportunity to explore her environment. The father missed the child’s cues, such as turning her head away. Dr. Perlman told the court that the closeness of the father’s face for so long would have been intimidating. The child actually averted her eyes a few times.

The father was not paying attention to how the child felt by not responding to her clues. [ 218 ] Both parents in the assessor’s opinion were more focused on their own needs rather than exploring the child’s needs. [ 219 ] While the child did not complain, the child did have a flat affect. At trial, Dr. Perlman indicated that had her observations over the almost one hour access had not been consistent with those of the access supervisors, she would have booked another access to observe.

Recommendations [ 220 ] Dr.

Perlman noted the following considerations for the mother: • history with the society, instability abuse and loss • recent psychiatric report concerning a Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia and a Substance Abuse Disorder • treated for anxiety • GAF (Global Assessment of Functioning): moderate to severe impairment • Medical: seizures • Chronic pain disability range of cognitive abilities • Defences are fragile as is judgment and reality testing • Limited coping ability • Developmental disabilities, poor insight, poor judgment interfere with ability to meet the physical, mental, emotional, social and developmental needs of the child [ 221 ] For the father, the assessor identified these c

[…]